The Special Operations Command will receive $3.4 billion in new funding between
2003 and 2007. Most of those dollars will be spent on aircraft upgrades and
other modernization programs.
In recent years, SOCOM had seen its moderni-zation budget plunge from $729
million in 2000 to $401 million in 2002. But priorities changed when the war
in Afghanistan started last October. Hence the plus-up for the special operations
forces.
The funds will be allocated as follows:
The overall budget for SOCOM in fiscal year 2003 is approximately $4.8 billion.
About 41 percent goes to salaries and benefits, 37 percent for operations and
maintenance, 10 percent for research, 10 percent for procurement and 2 percent
for military construction.
Despite the soaring budgets, SOCOM plans to seek further increases. The current
budget, “is not enough money to transform and modernize the force,”
said the deputy chief of SOCOM, Army Lt. Gen. William F. Tangney. “I think
we can go up to about $6 billion a year,” he said in a speech to the Special
Operations symposium sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association.
Tangney said that he plans to request new funding in the fiscal 2004 budget
both for modernization and to expand the size of the force. “We would
still be under 2 percent of the total Defense Department’s budget,”
he noted.
SOCOM currently has 46,000 members (27,000 on active duty). Approximately 8,000
have been involved in the ongoing anti-terrorism campaign in Central Asia. Typically,
about 4,000 special operations forces are deployed at any given time.
Having to double the size of the deployed force created a “logistics
and mobility” crunch, said Tangney. “We were not right-sized for
a global campaign.” In the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom,
“we needed to draw infrastructure and support from the European Command.”
Communications and logistics problems during the war were particularly severe
for the Navy SEALs, said Rear Adm. Eric T. Olson, chief of the Naval Special
Warfare Command. However, he said, “Those are easier to fix than shortfalls
in force structure.”
The SEALs’ presence in the Central Command theater expanded threefold
since September 11, said Olson. “While preparing for a larger war, we
continued to interdict and seize ships that are smuggling oil from Iraq.”
He noted that ship interdiction is not a new mission for the SEALs. They have
been doing that for many years. SEALs intercept ships known to be non-compliant
with the UN oil embargo against Iraq. They climb aboard, during the brief period
when the ship is sailing in international waters.
These are dangerous missions, Olson said. “At times, the ship crews have
strewn wire beehive across their decks, which limits the SEALs’ ability
to move in the dark.” Nonetheless, he said, the SEALs interdiction work
has “taken an estimated $20 billion a year from the pockets of Saddam
Hussein.”
In fiscal 2003, SOCOM will receive $431 million for research and development,
$777 million for procurement and $219 million for operations and maintenance.
During a presentation at the symposium, SOCOM’s acquisition executive,
Harry E. Schulte, listed the following programs as the command’s top priorities:
The CV-22 will be used for long-range infiltration, evacuation and resupply
missions. SOCOM plans to buy 50 aircraft during the next 10 years. The program
has been grounded for more than a year, as a result of deadly crashes, but flight
tests are expected to resume this summer, said Schulte. One problem in this
program is the schedule, he said. Deliveries are scheduled to run until 2017.
“That’s too long. We need to finish by 2012.”
Air Force Lt. Gen. Paul Hester, commander of the Air Force Special Operations
Command, endorsed the CV-22 aircraft in remarks at the conference. “The
terrain and elevation in Afghanistan has validated our need for the capability
of an aircraft like the CV-22,” he said. “We need the technology
that this aircraft offers, and I am excited that testing is going to begin soon.”
SOCOM has been testing a new prototype of the Advanced SEAL Delivery System
(ASDS). The plan was to buy six of these 65-foot long mini-submarines used to
transport naval special warfare forces (called SEALs) from a submarine to the
shore. But there is not enough money in the budget to buy six, said Schulte.
Three ASDS systems are funded in the five-year plan. All three are expected
to be in the fleet by 2009.
Meanwhile, said Schulte, there are still some technical problems in the ASDS
that need to be solved. One of them is the silver-zinc battery. “We need
more performance out of the battery,” he said.
A companion vehicle to the ASDS will be a smaller, personal transport vehicle,
a sort of underwater motor scooter that SEALs will use to move from the ASDS
to the beach.
The mission-enhanced Little Bird program will upgrade 45 MH-6J helicopters.
The improvements will include modifications to the airframe to increase its
load capacity from 3,950 to 4,700 pounds, a new landing gear system and dampers,
an upgraded tail rotor-drive system, an enlarged cargo-door opening and a crashworthy
fuel system.
The fiscal 2003 budget funds eight speed boats, known as the special operations
craft riverine, used to insert and extract SEALs in riverine environments. SOCOM
is buying eight crafts, but has a requirement for 18, said Schulte.
The SEALs are pursuing research work towards developing a next-generation craft,
said Olson. Any new ship, he said, would have to be compatible and interoperable
with conventional Navy vessels. “We are working with the Navy to develop
[a fast transport that would be] the C-130 of the sea—something configurable
for many missions, including special operations,” he said.
This year, SOCOM plans to start the MH-47 (a special operations version of
the Army Chinook cargo helicopter) service life-extension program. By 2009,
37 MH-47D/E aircraft will be upgraded to the MH-47G configuration, adding 20
years to the life of the aircraft. The plan is to rebuild the airframe and install
new electronic wires and hydraulic lines. The helicopter will receive a new
cockpit and the airframe will be stiffened to reduce vibration.
The directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system will be installed on
eight AC-130H and 13 AC-130U gunships, on 24 MC-130H and 14 MC-130E transports
and on all 50 CV-22s. There may be plans to equip helicopters in the future,
but no final decision has been made yet, said Schulte.
At least 27 MC-130H Combat Talon II aircraft will receive air refueling capabilities
by 2008. According to Gen. Paul Hester, there is a severe “shortage in
tanking capability.” Currently, he said, “We can only fulfill 35
percent of the requests for air refueling.”
With nearly an extra billion dollars to convert four existing C-130s to AC-130U
Specter gunships, the commander of SOCOM, Air Force Gen. Charles Holland, “is
happy about the new AC-130s,” said Schulte. “But what he really
needs is to modernize the current fleet.” SOCOM has 13 gunships.
Among the most useful features in the gunships, said Hester, is the ability
to receive streaming video broadcast from the Predator unmanned aircraft. Two
H models and two G model gunships were modified for the direct video capability.
In Afghanistan, he said, this technology helped improve targeting and maneuverability.
Schulte noted that one the most successful acquisition programs at SOCOM is
for tactical radios. Of the radios that have seen action in Afghanistan, SOCOM
received favorable feedback on two: the multiband, multimission radio (MBMMR)
and the multiband inter/intra team radio (MBITR). The command has bought 190
MBMMR radios, from a total order of 3,561. Made by Raytheon Systems Inc., the
MBMMR is a man-pack, 30-512 Megahertz radio. The funding through fiscal 2007
is $54 million. SOCOM ordered 10,210 MBITR radios from Thales Communications
Inc. and so far has purchased 4,648. The command budgeted $74 million through
fiscal 2007 for the 30-512 Megahertz handheld radio.
Eventually, said Schulte, all SOCOM radios will migrate to the software-based
Joint Tactical Radio System, currently in development.
The AC-X advanced tactical laser is a technology demonstration project to show
the viability of installing a directed-energy weapon on an AC-130 gunship. An
operational prototype could be ready as early as fiscal 2006.
Since the war in Afghanistan began last October, the special operations forces
received authorization to buy equipment on short notice. Such “urgent
deployment acquisitions”—which were needed in the field within days
or weeks—were purchased with a portion of the so-called Defense Emergency
Response Fund. This fund included $532 million requested by the Pentagon, plus
$142 million that Congress added, specifically to buy various types of radios.
The special operations forces fighting in Afghanistan sent an urgent order
for laser-targeting devices and remote-camera controllers.
In response to appeals from forces in the field, SOCOM officials went out looking
for Toyota 4x4 trucks—Tacomas, Tundras—and Polaris 6x6 all-terrain
vehicles. Schulte said that the Toyota dealer in Lexington, Ky., sold every
truck on the lot within minutes. He noted that the Toyota trucks allow U.S.
forces in Afghanistan to blend in with the locals, who mostly drive Toyotas.
Many of the items on the list of “urgent acquisitions” have yet
to be produced or delivered, because they are technically complex and are not
available off-the-shelf, said Schulte. The small drones are a case in point.
U.S. commandos also requested rifles that can shoot Russian ammunition. They
wanted to take advantage of the easy availability of Russian ammo in Afghanistan.
However, U.S. forces will not go as far as using the Russian rifles, because
they “don’t like the reliability of the Russian weapon,” said
Schulte. SOCOM is working with the Navy warfare technology laboratory in Crane,
Ind., to make a modified M-16 rifle that can fire Russian ammo. “That
is hard to do,” said Schulte. “It won’t be done right away.”
The commander of the 75th Ranger Regiment, Army Col. Joseph L. Votel, told
the NDIA symposium that, when it came to having enough equipment and weapons
to operate in Afghanistan, he had little to complain about.
Unlike other units in the U.S. Army, he said, “We are exceptionally well
resourced, with money, with equipment, with people.”
Votel was in charge of an October 19 raid, where Rangers were to parachute
into an airstrip in Afghanistan, located 100 km southwest of Kandahar and 100
km north of the Afghan-Pakistani border. The airstrip was to be surveyed, so
it could be used later by U.S. Marines.
He cited some of the lessons the Rangers learned from the operation. “Organize,
equip and operate every day as you would for combat,” said Votel. “A
lot of things that we did [in Afghanistan] had been rehearsed in the past.”
In general, he said, “the equipment we had was the right equipment [even
though] there is always something I need that is not available.” The more
valuable gear, in addition to weapons, was night vision goggles and the handheld
MBITR radios.
Among the items that Votel did not have in Afghanistan, and would have liked
to have, were handheld thermal sensors (FLIR) and a local-area network to link
sensors and shooters. “Anything that can increase commander’s common
operating picture” is valuable, he said.
“We made good use of local-area networks to flatten out the organization,”
said Votel. “It’s not uncommon for a platoon leader to be able to
download a piece of information and brief the squad leaders. … That was
key in this operation.”
Because there were so many trenches in that airfield, he added, “It was
important to have the right equipment to look inside trenches.”
A formidable enemy in Afghanistan turned out to be the weather and the terrain.
“We went into this operation with a great degree of respect for the Taliban.
… But what we found, of equal concern, was the environment: the weather,
winds, dust.”
The dust poses significant dangers to helicopters trying to land in Afghanistan,
said Hester. The inability to see the ground during landings in dusty strips
is called “brownout.” Those brownouts partly caused the 1980 Desert
One fiasco, “and we still encounter that problem today,” Hester
said. “We are continuing to refine our procedures and looking for technology
that will assist our helicopters in engaging in brownout landings.”